Oh the hypocrisy of Provo professors!!!!

[_Daniel Peterson]

if it's a real baptism then treat it like one.

Having the neighbors there, along with a random selection of aunts and uncles and siblings and cousins, has no more to do with the validity of the baptism than having Franck the Wedding Planner in attendance determines whether a marriage is valid or not.

If I decide to pray for the soul of a deceased person, do I need to invite all of his third cousins twice removed to stand beside my bed?

Is prayer a priesthood ordinance? You seem to be trying to equate baptism for the dead with prayer. This defense seems disingenuous.

Please explain why. (Other than the general principle, of course, that everything I do and say is disingenuous.)

[_Analytics]

Here is the exchange:

Analytics:
"It isn't obvious to me that such an artist has the moral obligation to defer to Mormon sensibilities when he attempts to create a realistic depiction of Mormons."

Peterson:
"Decent, civil people respect strong religious sensibilities."


Someone may want to remind the ol Provo chap of the lack of respect his church displays everytime it decides to proxy baptise non-members into their belief system. Seems this church "says" it will stop such practice only when called to do so through the press.

I think you make a fair point. At an academic conference, I heard a Hindu scholar who passionately argued that in general, religious proselytizing is highly offensive and the root source of much of the contention in the world. Convincing her that proselytizing is actually a loving, respectful wonderful thing would be just as futile as trying to convince Dr. Peterson that accurately depicting sacred moments in the lives of Mormon TV characters is a respectful thing.

The bottom line is that people have conflicting systems of morality. As long as Mormons go to great lengths to convert non-Mormons to their religion, they will be engaging in highly offensive behavior to certain Hindus. As long as they go about baptizing holocaust victims, they’ll be engaging in highly offensive behavior to certain Jews.

If Mormons flatly believed that "Decent, civil people respect strong religious sensibilities.", then they’d stop both missionary work and work for the dead. The fact that they don’t proves that decent, civil people don’t always respect strong religious sensibilities.

Personally, I think that using literature and drama to help people better understand each other is a highly noble endeavor. To me, making an accurate, well-rounded, deep, and sympathetic representation of a Mormon character requires exploring temple worship—it is an important part of them. I understand that they have the religious conviction that they can’t be understood in this way except by fellow believers. Of course they are free to think that. But I hope they can at least understand how that comes across as elitism. I hope they can at least understand why a humanist might think that shining a bright, sympathetic light onto the deep and personal parts of the human experience is in fact a noble.

[_silentkid]

Please explain why.

I think I already did in my conversation with The Nehor.

(Other than the general principle, of course, that everything I do and say is disingenuous.)

More self-deprecation. I don't share this opinion you seem to have of yourself. I think you make many valid points. I just feel like the comparison you made in this thread, which I commented on, isn't accurate. If you truly feel that it is, I withdraw the disingenuous from my comment.

[_JoetheClerk]

"Does this mean that each deceased person's proxy baptism is performed 22 times?"

The last time I attended the Temple I came out with the name of the individual and did some checking. My pass through was the 8th time that person had had their work done in less than a year. I visited with the Temple Prez and was told 'this is common' as not enough names are coming in.

Last time I went. I don't need busy work to take up time better used for helping those still alive.

Too much baloney going on with fools making exuses picked out of a mules ass of reasoning.

Tell the truth and let it be done. Then you don't have to remember which story you told.

[_harmony]

No one will ever know ...

This is simply not true, as we've seen repeatedly. Nothing the church does is secret anymore.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If Mormons flatly believed that "Decent, civil people respect strong religious sensibilities.", then they’d stop both missionary work and work for the dead. The fact that they don’t proves that decent, civil people don’t always respect strong religious sensibilities.

I don't share the notion, at all, that attempting to persuade others of one's position -- in religion or in any other regard -- is an expression of disrespect.

I see nothing intrinsically unethical or disrespectful in the efforts of early Christian or Buddhist missionaries, or in the work of Mateo Ricci or Dr. Livingstone or Billy Graham, or in Islamic da‘Washington, or in the apologetic writing of Thomas Aquinas or al-Ghazali.

[_ludwigm]

No one will ever know ...

This is simply not true, as we've seen repeatedly. Nothing the church does is secret anymore.

But the church can not make a merit of this.

The evil internet did everything ...

[_TAK]

"some irrationally so" ??

Sure some. I did not say all.

You are out of touch with reality.. most people would be angry and being irrational has nothing to do with it.

No most would not be angry. Not everyone is irrationally as angry as you seem.

l

Why don't you ask a dozen or so of your co-workers if they would mind a Wiccan clan doing chats over thier grandmothers grave to save her immortal soul and see it they would be ok with that.. You seem to think most would not care.. I doubt that.

[_antishock8]

I just asked a co-worker if he would be pissed to find out Scientologists were baptizing his dead mother into their cult. He said, "Of course I'd be angry. It's disrespectful. I don't disrespect their beliefs... They should leave me and my family alone."

The only ones that don't seem to "get it" are Mormons.

[_Jason Bourne]

I just asked a co-worker if he would be pissed to find out Scientologists were baptizing his dead mother into their cult. He said, "Of course I'd be angry. It's disrespectful. I don't disrespect their beliefs... They should leave me and my family alone."

The only ones that don't seem to "get it" are Mormons.

Ok

Perhaps I am wrong on this one.

But why don't you ask about LDS proxy baptism. Avoid your typical use of volatile words such as cult. Explain the idea behinds LDS proxy baptism. You know, that it is performed with the idea that it is only valid if an actual real person who is a spirit and able to make free will choices, accepts it. It does not automatically ake them Mormon.

The people I have talked to about this over the years seem to have no problem with this. Granted, I have not talked to hundreds, but maybe dozens.

In fact my BIL who lost his wife a few years ago was quite fine with this when my wife asked him if it was ok to do proxy work for his wife. And yes, we did feel we should ask him first. He was actually quite touched that we cared enough about her to do this. Of course they were not all that religious in any one faith so that may have been a factor.